Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host–parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality

IF 1.3 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY Theory in Biosciences Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1007/s12064-024-00426-3
Nina Kranke
{"title":"Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host–parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality","authors":"Nina Kranke","doi":"10.1007/s12064-024-00426-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent discussions, the widespread conviction that scientific individuation practices are governed by theories and concepts of biological individuality has been challenged, particularly by advocates of practice-based approaches. This discussion raises questions about the relationship between individuation practices and concepts of individuality. In this paper, I discuss four studies of host–parasite systems and analyze the respective individuation practices to see whether they correspond to established concepts of biological individuality. My analysis suggests that scientists individuate biological systems on different levels of organization and that the researchers’ respective emphasis on one of the levels depends on the explanandum and research context as well as epistemic aims and purposes. It thus makes sense to use different concepts of individuality to account for different individuation practices. However, not all individuation practices are represented equally well by concepts of biological individuality. To account for this observation, I propose that concepts of individuality should be understood as abstracted, idealized, or simplified models that represent only certain aspects of scientific practice. A modeling account suggests a pluralistic view of concepts of biological individuality that not only allows the coexistence of different kinds of individuality (e.g., evolutionary individuality, immunological individuality, ecological individuality) but also of normative and descriptive concepts.</p>","PeriodicalId":54428,"journal":{"name":"Theory in Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory in Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-024-00426-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent discussions, the widespread conviction that scientific individuation practices are governed by theories and concepts of biological individuality has been challenged, particularly by advocates of practice-based approaches. This discussion raises questions about the relationship between individuation practices and concepts of individuality. In this paper, I discuss four studies of host–parasite systems and analyze the respective individuation practices to see whether they correspond to established concepts of biological individuality. My analysis suggests that scientists individuate biological systems on different levels of organization and that the researchers’ respective emphasis on one of the levels depends on the explanandum and research context as well as epistemic aims and purposes. It thus makes sense to use different concepts of individuality to account for different individuation practices. However, not all individuation practices are represented equally well by concepts of biological individuality. To account for this observation, I propose that concepts of individuality should be understood as abstracted, idealized, or simplified models that represent only certain aspects of scientific practice. A modeling account suggests a pluralistic view of concepts of biological individuality that not only allows the coexistence of different kinds of individuality (e.g., evolutionary individuality, immunological individuality, ecological individuality) but also of normative and descriptive concepts.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个体性概念能否解释宿主-寄生虫系统研究中的个体化实践?生物个体性的模型解释
在最近的讨论中,人们普遍认为科学个体化实践受生物个体性理论和概念的支配,这一观点受到了质疑,尤其是以实践为基础的方法的倡导者。这一讨论提出了个体化实践与个体性概念之间关系的问题。在本文中,我讨论了四项关于宿主-寄生虫系统的研究,并分析了各自的个体化实践,以了解它们是否符合既定的生物个体性概念。我的分析表明,科学家在不同的组织层次上对生物系统进行个体化,而研究人员各自对其中一个层次的强调取决于解释说明和研究背景,以及认识论的目的和宗旨。因此,使用不同的个体性概念来解释不同的个体化实践是有道理的。然而,并非所有的个体化实践都能用生物个体性概念很好地表述。为了解释这一现象,我建议将个体性概念理解为抽象的、理想化的或简化的模型,它们只代表科学实践的某些方面。模型化的解释建议对生物个体性概念采取多元化的观点,不仅允许不同类型的个体性(如进化个体性、免疫个体性、生态个体性)共存,而且允许规范性概念和描述性概念共存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theory in Biosciences
Theory in Biosciences 生物-生物学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Theory in Biosciences focuses on new concepts in theoretical biology. It also includes analytical and modelling approaches as well as philosophical and historical issues. Central topics are: Artificial Life; Bioinformatics with a focus on novel methods, phenomena, and interpretations; Bioinspired Modeling; Complexity, Robustness, and Resilience; Embodied Cognition; Evolutionary Biology; Evo-Devo; Game Theoretic Modeling; Genetics; History of Biology; Language Evolution; Mathematical Biology; Origin of Life; Philosophy of Biology; Population Biology; Systems Biology; Theoretical Ecology; Theoretical Molecular Biology; Theoretical Neuroscience & Cognition.
期刊最新文献
Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host–parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality Spaces of mathematical chemistry Prioritizing cervical cancer candidate genes using chaos game and fractal-based time series approach. Application of network pharmacology in synergistic action of Chinese herbal compounds. Rethinking life and predicting its origin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1